User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 2

Восточный фронт

[1] Здравствуйте! Всегда рад помочь, только не подскажите, в какой именно статье?--Reino Helismaa (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

я не ожидал ответа на русском. в чём вы чувствуете себя особенно способным помочь? вы знаете финский язык?--mrg3105mrg3105 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Извините что пишу по-русски, просто с английским у меня если честно довольно плохо, а Вы ведь, как я понял, понимаете по-русски? Финский знаю довольно неплохо (хотя не могу сказать что очень хорошо), поскольку уже довольно давно интересуюсь культурой и историей Финляндией. Вполне мог бы помочь с идентификацией финских и советских названий (как Вы и просили).--Reino Helismaa (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Armies

Thanks for the resource link Mrg. If you feel like doing a translation, there's ru:8-я воздушная армия on the Ru-wiki there, and we don't currently have an article for the 8th Air Army. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Actually I'm just running out the door as my appointment was changed from morning to afternoon. I do for you what I can, but as per your advice I want to finish the upper command echelon structure before plunging into the maze of Armies, Corps and divisions. I have almost completed the basic standard page layouts, and only need to populate the fields. You picked up on my experimentation with the 4th Ukrainian (I can't get used to that extra i!), the original box Created for the Karelian Front (but I forgot to remove the title). I really appreciate your help and more so the patience with my mistakes. I'm learning though.

Back to Air Armies, I would like to make a special effort with them when I'm done with TVDs, SDs, MDs and Fronts). The Red Air Force during WWII was massive, and conducted operations that dwarfed the Battle of Britain, but their contribution and operations are virtually unknown. There was an Air Army in every Front, but of course some were down to a couple of hundred aircraft in 1941. BTW, that site has a blanket statement of permission to use information (with attribution of course) so no need to ask for permission, though I may contact the owner for additional information from his extensive library on Soviet wartime aviation.
BTW, ru:Wiki is not of a consistent quality, so be aware of that when doing translation-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead, just add a source for each addition - which would be good for that division of PVO into various parts you put in as well. Happy New (western!) Year! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wordiness

I can do that, but I don't know how to track a particular user other than manually checking your contribs every day. If you know of an automated way for your contribs to be added to my watch list, please advise. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind asking Buckshot? He showed it to me the other day, but I decided not to use it, and so didn't copy into my "useful to know" file, and now can't find it of course (to my embarrassment) Thank you-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To butt in, no, I was solely manually checking contributions - there's no automated process. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with the 33rd MRD edits. Yow, that was no fun. I left the structure of the article alone, but it needs a lot of work. It reads more like a history of the 87th Rifle Corps than of the division which the article purports to be about. I'd suggest moving it to the name "87th Rifle Corps" or cutting out the material which has nothing to do with the 33rd MRD or its precursor units. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pyotr Koshevoy

I saw the note in the article history about the "standard transliteration" but I don't care for it. I think Petr Koshevoi would be a "truer" article title. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an ISO transliteration standard which I think is 9 now. Have a look at that. I have not been transliterating anything because it seems to me the Project needs to set a style standard for the MilHist wide application and not just deciding what we like as individuals Having said that, I also think that the Pyotr is a better phonetic approximation then Petr. Now on the Internet many Russian sources do not write ё (yo), but settle for the simple e, and in many cases it is not as a significant omission as it may seem, but in this case it is.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

здравствулте!, perhaps it would be better to put the ranks of the Soviet Marshals in the infoboxes like so in the Hovhannes Bagramyan article [2]. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Privet. I thought about this, and due no doubt to Armenian efforts the article on Bargamyan is a particularly good one (former FA), but I thought a Marshal deserved a big display of the symbolic shoulder boards. I have applied it to all wartime Marshals. The image is too large for the infobox, and if the tile is used, it doesn't look that impressive. It seems to me the reader should be impressed by the symbol of the individual's achievement.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, it seems odd placing it right in the lead paragraph and becomes an obstruction for the reader. It's OK if it looks unimpressive in the infobox; it's not so much of impressing the reader by placing a huge Marshal of the USSR in the top of the article but providing an interesting biography of a figure, the rank of which the readers will acquaint themselves with.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously feel strongly about it.-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

German units on Eastern Front

Check Category:Military units and formations of Germany before you assume things are missing. I think all Army Groups are there, virtually all Armies, many Corps, and lots of divisions. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And you assume that I haven't looked. I was looking at the 18th Army (why are they spelled out when the Germans used numerals?). There are OOBs, but no narrative of operations. What use is in me pointing a link to that when describing Soviet operations around Leningrad when the reader will get no idea on the actions and reactions of the German opposite commanders? The Eighteenth Army (Germany) is not even linked to the Siege of Leningrad, so whoever wrote it was not aware of anything that happened between Barbarossa and 1944 in Kourland (quote the entirety of article entry):

Formed in November 1939 in Military Region (Wehrkreis) VI, the Eighteenth Army invaded the Netherlands (Battle of the Netherlands) and Belgium during Fall Gelb and moved into France in 1940. The Eighteenth Army was then moved east and invaded Russia during Operation Barbarossa in 1941. The army fought with Army Group North until early 1945, when it was subordinated to Army Group Kurland. In October 1944, the army was cut off by Red Army advances (Courland Pocket) and spent the remainder of the war in the Courland peninsula of Latvia.

This is what I mean by completing the articles. Its not just about the OOBs, which is why I wanted to do the operational history -- mrg3105mrg3105 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, same here. But that one is there, at least, isn't it. Better than these millions of Soviet armies, divisions, corps, etc that aren't. Great work on Volkhov Front, by the way, but I've had to change the box a bit. You had a 'current commander' listed. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I have a tendency to jump to conclusions and then eat my 'humble pie' on occasions, so I don't hold your reprimands as personal ;O) Be assured that I think the work you are doing is probably worthy of a better reward then a few digital images (medals, chevrons). However I would like to bring a greater descriptive sense to the Eastern front then just the OOBs. This is why I started at the top, rather then the bottom like yourself (the hundreds of divisions!). I have to say that I'm getting a bit frustrated with Wikipedia, and myself to some degree in failure to develop the strategic structure faster, but I want to do this right. I am fairly well pissed off by the way Eastern front is presented in Wiki. It reads like a travel itinerary with just a few city names that in no way give the impression of who did what to whom and on what scale.

The Volkhov Front is still an experiment in my Wikification muscle flexing :o) Thank you for your encouragement. I find doing this strange because unlike regular work, this is just me and the PC. You saw that I added the Marshal shoulder board to each wartime Marshal? The Armenian author of the Bagramyan article removed it to the infobox, the nationalistic sod. He is also trying to insert the Modern Armenian flag as a show of Bagramyan's 'allegiance' :o)
What do you mean about the use of modern Soviet commander in the Volkhov Front infobox? It said notable commanders, and he was a notable commander who fought on the Volchov Front (ok, notable after the war). Maybe I misunderstood definition of notability?-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was just the way you inserted the names into the infobox. The way you did it implied that there was a commander currently - 2008 - acting as commander of the Volkhov Front. I've fixed it. If you like, why don't you switch the Armenian flag presented to the Armenian SSR flag of 42? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. I will keep it in mind for the rest. If you have any suggestions, please contribute. I will also wan to add a box at the bottom of the Fronts for switching from Front to Front like you have done for the Armies. To tell you the truth I don't think its going to matter which flag is used. The intent is to disassociate from USSR as far as possible, so a few months in Armenian forces as NCO is a good enough reason to remove 30 years of service in Soviet Army. I see this all the time in post-USSR articles. In any case, I had no idea Armenia had a different flag in 1942-- mrg3105mrg3105 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you mind AGF, remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks by calling me a "nationalistic sod" right off the bat. I'm not at all attempting at all to disassociate Baghramyan's service to the USSR but by removing the flag, the flag of Armenia of 1918-1920, you're distorting the sources. Baghramyan's service to the DROA, including his account of the battle of Sardarapat, is mentioned in his "Moya Vospominaniya" and you cannot discount that service as "a few months." May 1918 - May 1920, I'm not sure but that sounds more like 2 years rather than a few months which more than warrants that at one time he had an allegiance to Armenia. He could have chosen to fight for the Reds during the Civil War but the fact that he stayed in Armenia means that he was still committed to seeing it survive an onslaught by the Turks.

I've tried talking to you about this on his discussion page but it's telling that you ignore that page and move straight to making unilateral edits. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll mind my AGF when you take note of Common Sense. Many people participated in the Battle of Sardarapat, and as I recall it took some time for Bagramyan to sort out what he was going to do after the collapse of the Russian Empire, and to reach the Armenian forcs. Like many Armenians with military experience he was naturally swept up in the call-up. As I recall at least from the version published in Russian his service in the Armenian forces was not the full 2 years you suggest (do you think the Armenian armed forces just magically created themselves on 1 January 1918?), but a few months of great uncertainly as other Armenian leaders bickered and eventually scraped together a force that resisted the Turks (who were by then defeated by the Allies anyway). He did chose to fight for the Reds since the Civil War lasted until 1924 (in fact longer). Instead of bickering with me over what is a very commons sense issue from my POV, YOU could have gone and put the Armenian flag into the article on the battle, which has none! You may also want to add that this was one of the earliest military experiences of an Armenian NCO that would later become a Marshal of Soviet Union. Seems to me a far more appropriate thing to do. I know that flag means a lot to you, but please don't mix your sense of nationalistic pride (not a bad thing) with conclusions about history. Its dangerous stuff.-- mrg3105mrg3105 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations

There's a pretty standard understanding - division = div, regiment = regt or rgt, infantry = inf, tank = tk, anti-aircraft = AA, anti-tank = AT, ... is this the kind of thing you mean? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but for air units. I know the ground abbreviations very well, but what about fighter, bomber, mixed? Is Aviation Air Corps - AAC? I'm not even sure where to look since UK/US work on wings and divisions. BTW, I see in the resources abbreviations the translation for Shturmovoy is Assault. Are you happy with that? I think the abbreviations resource needs updating also :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see Shturmovoy - the Il-2 concept - untranslated, because if I understand correctly it's a bit untranslate-able. A side reference to 'usually translated as Assault' would be OK. IAP = Fighter Aviation Regiment, BAP = Bomber Aviation Regiment, ShAP = Shurmovaya (sp!) Aviation Regiment, SAP = Mixed Aviation Regiment, 'O' in front of everything for Separate/Independent/Detached - take your pick, basically, use the Russian acronyms and include a abbreviation table in the article or linked closely. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to do abbreviations someone can easily understand without specialist knowledge. In Wiki there is only Ground Attack aircraft although as you say, it doesn't describe the concept behind Il-2. Would you like to write up a little article on this with a link to GA page? Or I can write Shturmovaya, as Shturmovaya, it will go to Il-2-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Link Shturmovaya like that. One thing though, don't put a detailed OOB on the Army (Soviet Army) page - that's for, at best, three or four lines for each Army. Put it at the Soviet Air Forces page or create an entirely new page - that's what Category:Orders of battle is for. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was out editing and checking so long I got logged out :o) So there is an anonymous OOB now. The only problem I had was that I forgot how to do a link with a link inside it, so the Shturmoviye Corps are not redlinked. The priority for me is to get the Air Armies set up for the Fronts so I can keep going with the development of operations. Eventually the rest of the OOB will be added in the category, but for now this will have to do. Sorry. In any case, I followed your advice and kept it to a few lines per Air Army, so its much slimmer then I planned, but still good I think?-- mrg3105mrg3105 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work! That's really good. Two requests - can I move it to a separate page, because it's really a separate order of battle, and I can put a link, and secondly, could you put a link to the original Russian webpage that you got it from? Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the OOB is found on several Russian sites, so its unlikely any of them own the copyright. The data was released some years ago by the MoD RF which has not made any moves to prosecute for breach of copyright. I will look if the MoD RF victory site has it also. There were a number of mistakes in the OOB due to scanning process and retyping which I fixed, and that makes me the first person to actually proof-read it :o) Just put MoD RF on it as source for now and I will get back to it. I will try to find which archive its from, but probably TzAMO, or the Air Force equivalent (the name escapes me right now). Yes, sure, move where you think its best. You can now move the Baku PVO page also to reflect correct name. As you can see form the OOB, some Armies were PVO and some Frontal, and they were not to be confused. Just a note that after 1949 all PVO armies were called Independent to differentiate from the Frontal Aviation. For some reason this is not reflected in the English language literature much. This was of course until recently when they were amalgamated.-- mrg3105mrg3105 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It will be at Soviet Air Forces Order of Battle 1 May 1945. Iassy-Kishinev only got renamed because we have an active Romanian editor - user:Eurocopter tigre. The problems of being wikipedia.... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. Thank you for doing that. I would like to set up a separate category for the air war over Eastern Front. What do you think? Any suggestions for a name?

I have asked Kirill to move the Yassy-Kishinev to the English transliteration and remove the redirect. Considering this was a Soviet operation, named in Russian, and the convention is to only leave the Operation code names in original language (so curious about Operation Spark?!), there is not reason it needs to be in Rumanian on en:Wiki, particularly since no source in English will use Rumanian. Its really funny how now everyone wants a 'piece' of Soviet Union I noticed the September war in Poland is listed as a major category for Soviet Military History ;O)-- mrg3105mrg3105 00:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Check and see what {{disambig}} gets you. When anyone writes an article on the Romanian or Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet (which I doubt will happen, given that that's their entire navy, one converts Black Sea Fleet to a disambig page, and you get Black Sea Fleet (Soviet Union), and, maybe, Black Sea Fleet (Turkey). Are you going to start the WP:RM on Iassy-Kishinev? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried to avoid reading up on {{disambig}} because I think the English language is sufficient to avoid it most of the time, but your advice is taken to note. (Note: I have seen Greek claims to three (3) fleets based on the number of seas that they have coasts on) :o)

I have voiced my reasons for requesting the WP:RM, and yes, I would like the page moved since I do not think it appropriate to be redirected every time my keyboard is not mapped to Romanian, and because of the precedent it would set. I actually prefer Yassy to Iassy, but either is used in sources and I think Glantz uses Iassy.
PS. I'll try to catch up on your requests from last week tonight when I get home. Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Special reconnaissance globalisation

Do you have specific recommendations? The article, in its present form, draws from things that are as often NATO as much as US doctrine. There are specific British examples from WWII, Iraq and the Falklands, as well as Soviet and Korean usage. Unfortunately, while there are accounts of specific actions from various nations, it is primarily the US that publishes actual doctrine.

In the modern use of the term, it is something that will be done by a technologically advanced country, due to its dependence on electronic communications and sensors, long-range fires typically by aircraft and missiles (and sometimes heavy artillery), and infiltration/exfiltration including submarines, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft operating at night and the extremes of altitude, etc.

There is a greater choice of international examples with direct action (military) than SR, simply because successful SR missions are apt to be clandestine and not get into the open literature. The article on DA complements this one. It's certainly easier to find material on DA, and, in some cases, where SR turns into DA. Soviet Spetsnaz, for example, had doctrine that even if they were on an SR mission in wartime, and they encountered enemy nuclear delivery systems, those were to be engaged at all costs. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard. I read the article again just to ensure I can reply to you with greater confidence.

I think the basic problem is that you have a huge amount of erudition on the US practice, and wrote for someone like yourself. This is a common problem with people who contribute to Wikipedia, including myself, in that we tend to write about things that interest us, and we therefore assume the reader will have similar interest, or the desire to have similar ambition to know the subject.

It seems to me that this being an encyclopaedia, every article needs to follow the Army rule of "say it thrice", by opening with a simple introduction/definition, then adding another section that expands into the general terms of the subject, and finally present the entirety of a detailed treatment. (This is my opinion only)

In the first instance you have not defined what is so 'special' about Special Recon., and how its form of recon is different to field/combat recon. In fact there is not even a link to the Reconnaissance article. Doing so would give the reader less familiar with SR a perspective and a context.

Speaking of perspective and context, you completely omitted the history of SR which goes back to Biblical times (and is mentioned in the Bible ;O)), and the often political nature of the use of such troops. There is also no mention of the echelon of command they usually work at, although you do mention Desert Storm and some senior US officers (who are also unlinked).

There are less then half-dozen mentions of non-USA units in the article, and none are linked. Aside from the British, SpetzNaz and OsNaz have a huge history in particular, including operations spanning from the Russian Civil War (as part of Dzerzhinski's organisation), and all the way to current operations in Chechnya. The French also have not inconsiderable experience in this regard. I would differ with you on the subject of "it is something that will be done by a technologically advanced country". Terrain and other factors can and did interfere with much of technology in many theatres where the SR troops operated, and they still performed missions, so it is not a defining precondition to excluding any units that are not part of NATO. On the other hand the SR troops of Israel who are technologically sophisticated and are not part of NATO are completely left out despite their 50+ years of experience.

I think the other reason I tagged it for US view is because almost in its entirety you use US terminology that assumes the article is speaking about US troops. For example in the section Basic Fire Support Safety the reference is made to "the Air Force combat controller with the SR could lase prominent terrain features as well as the target", but the terms like TACP, GAPS and MARS are US Air Force usage. In Directing fire support you say "SR, going back to Vietnam", but fire support direction by SF/commandos goes back further then Vietnam (even in the US use). Neither the Falklands campaign nor the Operation Biting are linked, and in fact the section TECHINT, although dealing largely with one British operation (which is only mentioned at the end, and the unit of the participating service personnel is not identified), the term used is a US one. At least you are not discriminative since you also don't link to the article on Operation Steel Tiger or other US SR units/projects/operations in Former United States special operations units;o).

Another minor point is that only those terms that are abbreviations need be capitalised. The use of capitals in things like DELTA Force is unwarranted since its not even the unit's full designation, but I know it is a common practice in the US military.

Well, I think that will do for now :o). I would suggest that you make a greater use of linking. I have also added the Category:Special Forces, and to my surprise found that some prominent SF articles were only categorised in their national sub-categories, so not exactly easy to find. Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Gallipoli

Hi, I don't think that that operational names were used by the British in 1915. I've also only seen it refered to as the 'Dardanelles landings' and similar. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, just wanted a confirmation.-- mrg3105mrg3105 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adding categories

Yes, you'd need to create the category by adding it to the article page. Parentheses are somewhat frowned upon in category names, so I'd suggest something like Category:Theaters of war instead.

"Military events" is possible—though something like "military actions" would help distinguish it from events that merely affect the military rather than involving it—but any such broad rearrangements will need to be discussed. I've also put up some other ideas at WT:WWII#Another thought on "operations" that you might be able to comment on.

(For what it's worth, I apologize for being so obstinate on this; but it's taken almost two years of continuous struggle to stabilize the operational categories in some minimally usable form. So I would strongly object to making any major changes to the entire structure without getting the support of the project in advance and making sure that what we end up with will still work across the board.) Kirill 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth I really appreciate your input, and having looked at the categories I can see where someone (you?) has tried to rationalise them. The problem is in the actual word 'operation'. In English there is only the one word to describe three different consepts that require three different words in Russian and in German. No less a persons then David Glants (Col.ret.) and the late Brigadier Richard Simpkin struggled to translate the concepts into NATO English. :o)-- mrg3105mrg3105 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a linguistic problem to some extent. I'm still hopeful that we'll eventually be able to come up with a category structure that's both correct and easy for someone to navigate; the problem tends to lie mostly in the top-level categories—can we find a term for "things the military did"?—and if we can develop a simple arrangement for those, the more specific categories will probably settle out neatly. Kirill 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I thought that was the case. It's not a problem at all; moving things away from the root categories is a good thing. Thank you for taking the time; I know from experience that cleaning up categories isn't the most exciting thing to do. :-) Kirill 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: with or including

I agree. However, I was reverting the unexplained and uncited increase in the size of the Russian Ground Forces from 395,000 to 488,000. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Ah, right, now I see it, sorry-- mrg3105mrg3105 04:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: disambig help

Replied on my talk page. Kirill 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with creating maps

I would like to find out about the experience other had in making their own maps, and the best approach suggestions. I have visited the relevant area but there seems to be too much information that does not necessarily relate to military maps. As a side issue, can screen captures from GoogleMaps be used?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC) As far as I know, Google Maps material is not freely-licensed by default, so it can't be used on Wiki pedia except to illustrate the software itself. Kirill 22:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall detailed military map standards available at the NATO web site. In terms of tools I've played with Map Maker, but no scalable vector graphic (SVG) output. I'm still searching for a good (simple!) general map creation tool. —PētersV (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NATO APP-6 and APP-6A symbols as font character symbols here: http://www.mapsymbs.com/maphome.html —PētersV (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tinkering with mapping tools and can load available images/databases. What do you need? -- SEWilco (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

G'day SEWilco. I have started a long term project of documenting Red Army operations during WWII. Ideally I would like to be able to have a map for each one with moderate to good level of detail. I estimate a need for the project of some 250 maps. The greatest challenge from my POV is the need for some topographic detail on some maps to illustrate the particular difficulty encountered by troops on either side in some particular operations. This means that the quality needs to be better then a blank map with the odd river and town. I will be able to provide Soviet, and in a more limited way, German maps as a guide, but they are not of high quality in terms of resolution by digital standards if you know what I mean. This would be for the long haul because Ideally it would be good to have a consistent style through the project.-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So just loading and tiling the low-resolution maps won't be enough. I'll have to check what topographic data is available for Europe-Russia/Kamchatka. We should probably move this to WP:WPMAP so others with map awareness can comment. Copy your above questions over there. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will have a look to find the appropriate discussion page to repost to-- mrg3105mrg3105 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lenskii

I have a soft copy of the Lenskii book - do you have it? I can send it to you if you want. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it Buckshot06. I used to have one, but it became corrupted and had to be destroyed. I really prefer the hard copies, but hard to get. Thank you.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

G'day Buckshot06. Did you send the Lenskii book. I have just cleaned out my email box, and didn't see it, but I'll have another look. Please remind me what it was that I needed to look up in there for you. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have not sent it yet. Should be able to do so over this (Aus/NZ) weekend period. There's nothing particular for you to look up - just add sourced material from there as you see fit. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Military personnel

I chose soldier because Military personnel redirects there. How about changing that into a stub (or perhaps Military profession) to cover the subject rather than creating a disambiguation page as it would be less disruptive? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip. Ok, I'll create Category:Military Professions. Just need to talk to project admin because we may be going with Armed Forces rather then Military. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 04:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

62nd Army

Mrg3105, I may expand the article but it will take some time as I'll have to review material to do so. If I run across anything in Russian that looks interesting, I'll send you a message. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. I feel completely lost in the categories, and have spent two days just trawling for articles that I will need on the Eastern Front. I realise how much is missing now, so my top level Campaign and Operations articles are really behind schedule, and I'm afraid that I will not get a good start on it before I go back to work. Of course you may just want to poin the 62nd Army to the Battle of Stalingrad which I see has its own sub-category! Interesting since militarily it was not that important, but of course it was for Allied morale and Hitler's gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair :O)--mrg3105mrg3105 05:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, knew that Khruschev was there (or somewhere in the general AOR) - twisting your tail a bit I'm afraid. But I'm getting a little confused with Brezhnev I think - Khruschev didn't, I think, rewrite Zhukov's memoirs to get himself better prominence - that was Brezhnev, right? Down here we're all feeling a little sad tonight - Edmund Hillary, the first man atop Everest along with Tenzing Norgay, has just died at the age of 88. He'll be getting a state funeral. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. I thought as much :o) Still, never assume anything in the big wide internet ;O)

It was Brezhnev that wrote himself in. There is even a photograph of him with some sailors in Crimea (I have the first edition). Since 1991 a new edition of Zhukov's memoirs has been republished, re-edited. The picture is gone (so I'm told).

Of course I heard about Sir Edmund Hillary. Its a pity he is only known for that climb because as I understand he has done a lot of other things (as of course his page says). Its interesting about being first. After that, everyone is just made of the same mould--mrg3105mrg3105 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Semyon Timoshenko article

I thought the marshal's shoulderboard placement where it was (right up at the beginning and to the left of the lead) was distracting, as this is a somewhat unusual placement for rank insignia. If you want it in there it might be better to place it elsewhere in the article such that it isn't I think distracting, which may happen with the shorter articles like Vasily Ivanovich Petrov, which is a stub. Personally I would try to find additional photos of the subject in place of rank insignia, but I don't know how hard this is with Soviet sources. I sometimes think that people go a little overboard with rank and decoration illustrations, but that's a personal preference. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I intend to Wikify all Marshals of USSR articles, but since many ware somewhat basic, I thought that an addition of at least one image was warranted. However since I did all of them in one go, I was less then calculating about the image placement. Possibly it bvelongs in the section that deals witht he period of service when the rank was awarded. I think given the rank there is nothing wrong with a BIG image. These were BIG men in terms of stature within the USSR :o) Thank you for your input again. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 05:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that these were big men to the USSR, but the articles are about them, not the Marshal of the Soviet Union rank. Just my thoughts. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxes

Please see WT:MILHIST#Auxiliary infobox for operational plans. :-) Kirill 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania

Please, before continuing this flame war, consider the fact that this is ENGLISH wikipedia, not the russian one. While the name in russian might still be with an 'u', all the official documents in English (i.e. check the resources listed in the talk page and in the articles under debate) have switched to the 'o' spelling. Furthermore, before making any more outrageous statements, please gather RELIABLE resource in order to reference your statements/opinions. Thank you, and please go do something else if you are unable to contribute. Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, since you seemed to not bother to understand my comments from my edits:

• my reply: my comments are placed there because they are replies to each point you brought; please stop vandalizing; you have been warned!
• your comment: you can post them below as I did and use quote. In any case they are irrelevant to anything I wrote
• my reply: then removing information that has absolutely no connection with what is being discussed, and furthermore, has not even a trace of referencing

Please understand that since talk pages are not forums, any statement that does not contribute, that is unreferrenced, and furthermore, that can be interpreted as 'outrageous' or even 'derogatory' or 'insulting' WILL be deleted, and if, the situation continues, this attitude will be reported. You have been warned. Nergaal (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Request for arbitration

do you even know what does that require, what does that inply? I BEG you to go ahead with this and continue to throw away both of our times. Nergaal (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Iasi-Chisinau Offensive

I suggest you might want to take a day or so before poking back at the article, as your edits are starting to became more disruptive than helpful and time might give you a bit of distance on the issue and remove some of the frustration you appear to be feeling. Narson (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, that is so WP:POINT and that was just not nice. Must you really do this? 'Tis not constructive... :-( --Illythr (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania: 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Romania. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am loathe to do this but, if I am going to notify one I should notify both. Makes it clear. Narson (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your trolling on Talk:Romania

Your interventions on Talk:Romania are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked. This is a warning.--84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation. Narson (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps move it to your sandbox first? Then the useful content (or structure) may be merged with the mainspace article under an agreed upon name. --Illythr (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wake up to yourself Illythr. What makes you think you can reach agreement after six months?! In any case, I already agreed tha tthe name should be Yassy-Kishinev Offensive Operation.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I can complete the article in a couple of days to a higher standard then has been achieved in the six months of arguing over the Rumanian name of the existing article. The last editorial activity on the existing article was not performed in a sandbox because it only involved Rumanisation of the article and attaching an empty to-do list!--mrg3105mrg3105 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mrg, this other article on the subject is Wikipedia:Content forking and not acceptable. I recommend you merge the detail or follow Illythr's advice and sandbox it - either way, it's going to have to be shut down. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, with all due respect the new article does not meet forking criteria.

"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies."

The article was an intentional creation, and not an unintentional one, and the Rumanian titled article was tagged for deletion since it does not meet Wikipedia standards. When it is deleted, the Yassy-Kishinev article will be the only article remaining. Further, the Rumanian-titled article was itself a forked article by redirecting from the previously named Iassy-Kishinev article, but no one noticed at the time. --mrg3105mrg3105 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm applying for an administration adjudication. The article is not a forking one but a replacement for an article that does not conform to Wikipedia standards. The discussion on the renaming of the Rumanian article on the operation has gone on for six months, so I see no reason that the article would be completed anytime in the current decade.This is besides the point that the article does not describe the actual operation, but a small part of it from the German POV. I am done arguing. IF AN ADMINISTRATOR SHUTS IT DOWN, then I will not touch it with a barge pole and it will remain a testament to Rumanian editorialship in English Wiki.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article was "Rumanised", as you call it, only about a month ago. Its original name was "Battle of Romania (1944)". Then Piotrus successfully proposed to move it to "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive" per his historic source. Then came Eurocopter and moved it to the Romanian name without any kind of proposal or discussion. I noticed the move just about a week after that and that's when the discussion really started. The side opposing the move has so far ignored the killing argument of all google links for their name pointing to Wikipedia (a very big no-no) and most reliable sources using the name I proposed (with none using theirs (although Turgidson managed to find one, which makes it 41 to 1)). While I am not sure I can convince them (if absolute majority of scholarly sources is not enough, what is?), it sure does convince neutral and uninvolved editors like Buckshot06, Husond and Narson. So, all that is needed is to draw attention of more such uninvolved users. Keeping cool and civil is absolutely crucial, too.

I objected to your apostrophed version for precisely the same reason.

The article you created is an obvious content fork (creating "own" version of an existing article). It was turned into a redirect very quickly. Not only did this not help you any, it will also allow the opposition to use your actions in an argumentum ad Hitlerum ("see, the bad guy supports it, so it and everyone who supports it is bad") against the main proposal (there already is at least one "no because I don't like a guy supporting this" vote there). I will move the salvageable content to your userspace and encourage you to work on it - I like your structure more than that of the current article. --Illythr (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the naming started 6 months ago, which is what I referred to. In any case the Iassy version is the Italian spelling as Jassy is the German one. To say Iassy in English would be Ayassy, but in Italian the sound is Iossy. You can find this out yourself by looking at the ISO 9 standards. No need for Google searches when you have standards derived by actual scientific analysis of speech :o) I'm not used to pointless discussions, and if the title discussion is anything to go by, the chances of producing a good article IMHO is very slim indeed.
Consider:

• The 'detailed' section of the existing article discusses the actions of one Soviet Corps
  
• the deception operations prior to the operation, which David Glantz used a chapter in his book to describe, is off-handedly dealt with in one sentence!
  
• The OOBs are wrong and incomplete
  
• even the senior Rumanian commander was not mentioned in the box.
  

The article is unsalvageable as it is due to structure, sources, content and of course the lacking NPOV. You can do with it whatever you want. I have many more operations to write up, and have wasted enough time on the Rumanian crowd here that are just chest-beating. Let them document the destruction of the Royal Rumanian Army themselves, but I will be watching everything that goes into that article and it will include heavy use of administrators if need be.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The current discussion only started with my "WTF?!" post on 16th December.

...And "Yassy" is the Russian spelling, so what? The article about the city actually uses the Romanian name, Iaşi (diacritics and all). How do you define which one's proper, lacking a centralized language-coordinating institution? Simple, you look in other encyclopedias. But what if they don't have articles about the topic you need? Then look in books by native speakers. Google Books is the simplest way to do so.

As for your article, as I said, I like your structure more (although I think that Romanian actions, like the coup and its effects deserve their own section, too). However, creating a second article about the same subject like you did is certainly not proper procedure. Best use your userspace to create the thing, then we can merge the content/structure with the main article. Flat out deleting an article that was being worked upon for over two years just because it has some deficiencies and a wrong name is not the way to go, too. If an article such as this turns out to be bad, it tends to be totally reworked, not deleted. --Illythr (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, looking at this comment I just realised you have not really considered your own statements before addressing them to me.

• Yassy' is not the Russian spelling. It is the ONLY transliteration possible into English from the Russian name for the city (Russian: Румыния) under International Organisation for Standardisation Standards.
  
  • The city's Romanian. This Wikipedia is English. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting result

•Support the proposed move or Jassy-Kishinev Operation as used in other sources. Check out the article's English sources for ample confirmation of the proposed title (and cf. Treaty of Jassy, Kishinev pogrom). — AjaxSmack 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Support per WP:NCGN, which Eurocopter ignores. We should use the name now used for those cities as of 1944. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Support the move per WP:NCGN, and Septentrionalis. In any case the current orthography is incorrect, it should be Iași-Chișinău in keeping with Romanian standards. - Francis Tyers • 21:33, 4 January 2008
•Support per Anderson and others (and the ever helpful WP:NCGN). Narson (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
•Support. There seems to be agreement (gasp) above that Iassy-Kishinev Operation is the most common English nameAndrewa (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008
•Strong Support - Original nominator: It seems we have a consensus to move the page back to Iassy/Yassy-Kishinev OffensiveBuckshot06 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 January 2008 (
•Support. Iassy-Kishinev is what Glantz uses, that's good enough for me. Erickson has Jassy-Kishinev, so that's a second-best. The current name is a travesty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 13 January 2008
•Changed to weak support Húsönd 04:23, 5 January 2008
8

•Oppose I would share opinions with Turgidson, and articles mentioned above should be moved to the oficial name of the cities. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Oppose per WP:NCGN, which PMAnderson ignores. We should use the name now used for those cities as of August 1944, when the event occurred. Please consult history books on that, or the relevant WP articles. -- Turgidson (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
•Oppose per WP:NCGN and Turgidson's explanation. -- AdrianTM
•Oppose WP:NCGN wikipedia policy. Ostap 06:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
•Oppose, as per Turgidson and WP:NCGN. --R O A M A T A A | msg 09:54, 6 January 2008
•Oppose per my interpretation of WP:NCGN (point 1 and "use English" ¶ 3--Illythr (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That last guy is Biru, not me. I'm all for it.--Illythr (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

HEY WAKE UP!!! This is an article about a Soviet Military Operation!!!!!!!--mrg3105]] 03:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...in an English encyclopedia, yes. "English" presumes using English names. Man am I patient.--Illythr (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The "so what?" is that this was the CONTEMPORARY historical usage by the Russian speaking Soviet command DURING the operation they conducted.
  
  • Should we use "Russland", "Sowjetunion" or "Moskau" in the Operation Barbarossa article as well (per this logic)? --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• EVERYONE defines proper as the name used by the historical personae during the event. The "centralised language-coordinating institution" in this case was the STAVKA in Moscow, and even Stalin, a Georgian, had to use this because that was the PRIMARY language spoken in the Red Army, and the official language of the USSR at the time
  
  • We're talking about English here. Not Russian. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• There is no need to look at other encyclopedias, because as a historian I look at the operational maps of the Operation. However, why not look in the Soviet Military Encyclopaedia? And why look at encyclopaedias anyway? Still, Dupuy's Encyclopaedia of Military History is a dated by still available source in English. Of course it says nothing about Yassy-Kishinev, and just calls it "Conquest of Rumania" (p.1116).
  • The operational maps are all in Russian, I take it? I'm sure German operational maps for their operations use "Russland", too. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that its best to look at books of native speakers, but in this case the native speakers who planned and executed the operation were Russian speakers, and not Rumanian!
  • Native speakers of English, seeing as how this is an English encyclopedia after all... --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• So how does "consulting books of native speakers" translate into consulting GoogleBooks? Never the less I did the search.
  
• Yassy-Kishinev produces use by Glantz, Bellamy, Jukes (Osprey series), Willard C. Frank and Philip S. Gillette, Christopher Duffy, Denes Bernad, Albert Axell, Malcolm Mackintosh, Nathan Constantin Leites, Carl G. Jacobsen, Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR, Florence Farmborough, Robert Maxwell (Information U.S.S.R.: An Authoritative Encyclopaedia about the Union of, University of Michigan), Martin L. Van Creveld, Kenneth S. Brower, Steven L. Canby, Air University (U.S.), United States Dept. of the Air Force.
  
• Iassy sources are only three, one Russian, one a collaboration for Glantz, and the other a 'reader' by Peter B. Lane, Ronald E. Marcello (unknown to me).
  
• Jassy is used by John Erickson, George Mellinger (on fighters), Carl G. Jacobsen (note use above), Heinrich Böll (a German), John Keegan, Sydney L. Mayer (for a Rand MacNally 'encyclopaedia'), Roman Johann Jarymowycz (from German sources), Paul Wanke (also a German), Horst Hutter (another German), J.B.A. Bailey, Norman M. Naimark (another German), Martin McCauley (not a military historian), Ray Merriam (from German sources), Harriet Fast Scott and William Fontaine Scott (in 1979 from German sources), Joseph Slabey Rouček (Slavonic encyclopaedia likely from German sources), Raymond Leonard Garthoff (1953, so from German sources), George H. Hanna (1960, likely from German sources), Andrei Oțetea (History of the Romanian people, 1974), Robert L. Pfaltzgraff (translation from German), Stephen J. Cimbala (unknown to me, but only one mention), Joint Committee on Slavic Studies, American Council of Learned Societies, Social Science Research Council (U.S.) (from 1970, so again from German sources), Andrew Hendrie (a US aircraft book!), Duncan Rogers, Sarah Rhiannon Williams (article on NW European Campaign, used in a footnote), Scott R. McMichael: The Battle of Jassy- Kishinev.[1944.] - Military Review, 65 (1985), and several Bulgarian authors.
  
  • I refined the GB search to use English language sources. I don't care much about the "Y/J" thing, my only argument for "J" being just the numerical difference: 41 vs 27. I objected only to the "Y-apostrophe" thing that's not used by anyone at all. --Illythr (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So where is the logic?!--mrg3105mrg3105 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

hey commie, you should stop using the archaic term rumunian (i.e. that term was in use in soviet russia/ussr) and use the one that is currently in official use in English (i.e. Romanian). Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys, I haven't read the articles, no judgment from my side about the contents or the most appropriate names, but Nergaal is right in terms of process: an article must be kept together in one place, no matter where. Mrg3105, if you think you can write a better content article, by all means write it, but use the page location where it now is. (Contested move proposals are a perennial source of conflicts, the point is just, as long as there's no consensus to change, the status quo always wins.) -- Oh, and Nergaal, please save yourself those slurs, like commie and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., what do you think are my chances of editing an article where the name of the article has not been Wikified for English Wiki over six months due to obvious nationalistic POV?

As a separate issue, I would like Nergaal to be prevented from posting to my user page and spamming my discussion comments, besides the "commie" comment which I actually find insulting since I'm from a family of refugees from the former Soviet Union.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know editing among the Romanian crowd can sometimes be pretty nasty - but what makes you think once you'd have "your" new article at the place you wanted it, you could edit there without them just like you wished? You'll have to face it, we must take our fellow editors as they come. If you get attacked, abusive editors can be placed under editing restrictions or, in extreme cases, banned.

As for unwanted postings on your talk page, you can of course politely ask a fellow editor to leave you alone, and they are expected to observe that, generally speaking, although if you edit topics of common interest to both of you there may be situations where they may have a legitimate need to contact you, so there can't be an absolute prohibition on posting here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect Fut.Perf. the PRIMARY goal of en-Wiki is not to manage editor relationships, but to produce quality articles. I have other things to do then to contend with someone's desire to enhance their national standing by renaming all remotely related articles in en-Wiki into their native language. All I wan to do is to write a good article. As I see this this is the reason for Wikipedia's existence. This is also the reason administrators exist to enforce this policy. So what happens if for six months a set of editors actively prevent the article from being completed in English by Rumanising it (I am not writing Romanised not to spite the nationals of Rumania, but to avid confusion with Romanisation, which means something else entirely in linguistics)? What are my options after logic, and Wikipedia's own standards have been discarded? Do you suggest I remap my keyboard to Rumanian? Did yous ee the redirection of the previously authored Iassy-Kishinev to the Rumanian titled article? Was that ok in en-Wiki? Can I then redirect the article on Maiji Restoration to a Japanese titled article? Do you mind if I redirect the Louisiana article to a French-titled one? I'm hopeing for some options. Cheers:o)--mrg3105mrg3105 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect: Note that Eurocopter's move from the previously agreed upon "Iassy-Kishinev Offensive" was not proposed at all, which places the current proposal at a disadvantage.

Mrg3105, as I said, I understand your frustration, but going emotional and using WP:POINTish arguments won't help you. Logic does seem to win through here on Wikipedia. At least often enough to keep *me* here. --Illythr (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen much application of logic here. As Future Perfect pointed out, lack of consensus leads to status quo, which is to say that input from ignorance leads to substandard Wikipedia product because Wikipedia's standards apparently don't apply either--mrg3105mrg3105 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why, ultimately, the arguments must be judged, not votes counted, preferably by a neutral and uninvolved admin. However, "neutral and uninvolved" tends to mean "has no idea what the whole thing's about". So, when someone like that sees such a dispute they have no clue about and see that one side is boorish and aggressive, they tend to side with the other guys even if the aggressive side is right (see this for an example:logic got through there, despite the uninformed majority voting "keep", often against mikka's attitude). Perhaps we can ask someone to make the final decision (I don't think there will be any more arguments coming). Someone like user:TSO1D, perhaps - I am yet to see his neutrality and logic fail him, and the fact that he's Romanian should preclude any claims of "anti-Romanian prejudice" should he side with the absolute majority of scholarly sources. --Illythr (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several good admin who watch RM. Perhaps it might be time to ask Dekimasu if he wouldn't mind looking over the arguments and bringing an end to the saga. Narson (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not care for any one Rumanian. I was accused of trolling by presenting a source which was deemed inadequate despite this Élisée Reclus while the obscure Greek scholar published in German 60 years earlier was upheld as a credible source. They even failed to see WHY I suggested the source and dismissed all my points without so much as bothering to provide unreferenced counterpoints. Instead I was subjected to ridicule and insults, all for a slap on the hand by an administrator. So far as I'm concerned all opinion coming from anyone speaking Rumanian is biased to the marrow of their bones, and is not to be considered as NPOV. I will no longer contribute to this article until it is renamed Yassy-Kishinev based on the survey of highly eminent military historians I provided from GoogleBooks as demanded of me. As Kirill pointed out to me, we all have our standards, and I am not prepared to lower mine for some chest-beating nationalist cause.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do *not* make the (often last) mistake of bringing ethnic prejudice to Wikipedia. While you may have the misfortune of meeting some of the, shall we say, less-than-objective-on-certain-issues Romanian editors, it is extremely, EXTREMELY wrong to assume the same of all of them based purely on their ethnicity. To name a few I met, TSO1D and AdiJapan have always been reasonable Ro admins. Dahn, while rather short-tempered and caustic at times is also reasonable, logical and anti-nationalistic. Many, like Biruitorul, DPotop and AdrianTM do have their POVs, but usually are able to keep them in check (Biru especially). Lumping them all together is an error of "Ukrainians are all greedy traitors" or "Russians are all drunkards" proportions. --Illythr (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is extremely wrong what happened here with me, but I don't see much sympathy. Instead I was branded a 'commie', a 'troll', a vandal, and was told to essentially bugger off. I also have not seen much NPOV from any participants. I judge on actions not words. However whern asked in the Romanian article to provide a source, I was summarily dismissed although my source has a vikipedia article in himself while the source used there is unknown outside Romania. I was trying to write a better article on the military operation, and note that I did wait several days to give time for discussion that went nowhere. However I have been advised that due to national pride these discussions can go on for as long as a year, so understandably I am really p**** o** because I when I requested the move I assumed good faith, which apparently is lacking.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to try reasoning first. Bring in good sources, let your opposition debate those, not your own words. If that fails, you can start an RFC in an attempt to draw community attention (thus hopefully diluting the opposing POV with neutral editors). Then you can turn to ArbCom to clear the mess. Responding to incivility in kind is a bad idea. Sweeping generalizations based on ethnicity are a very bad idea. --Illythr (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania etymology

Help me understand what the content dispute is about. If Romania doesn't derive from Latin Romanus, then from what would it derive? What's the alternative? This sounds all pretty odd and confused to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try for a simple version

The camp on the right assert that Romania is derived from Rome (Italy) via its Roman settlers in the early 5th century CE. They claim that Romanian language was always Latin based, and therefore the name of the country is Romania.
The camp on the left (me) suggests an alternative. There were indeed Roman settlers in ancient Dacia (a Roman province), but the (documented) influx of other tribes, including Slavs, and the influence of Greek language of Byzantium changed the language of the Dacians (majority population) despite their borrowing of Latin vocabulary. Subsequently when the Roman Empire split, the Eastern half became known to the Arabs as ar-Rum, meaning Rome, but in reference to the Eastern Roman Empire centred on Constantinople. Rum became also the general name for the Greeks and the Greek language as Lingua Franca of the region of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans, and subsequently when overtaken by Ottoman Turks, the area of Constantinople, a part of Northern Greece and what is today Romania became known as the Ottoman province of Rum. Sometime in the 16th century the European reference to this are switched from the Wallachia (another story) to Rumalia, and eventually Rumania in the 19th century. Although the article mentions works of a Greek scholar unknown in English who calls Rumania, Romania in 1816, I showed that a far better known academic 10 years after Romania officially adopted the spelling with an 'o' was still calling it Rumania. The source is Élisée Reclus, who was in his time a competitor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Before I pointed to him as a source I was called a troll, a commie, and was told to get off the discussion page for espousing unproven theories. However not one of the references in the Etymology page or its associated article in Romania is accessible to an English speaker, and some are incomplete so can never be references or sourced from for example my university library. Now if I am in en-Wike, and I want to find out where the assertions made by the editors come from, and are not OR, what exactly are my supposed to do, go and learn Romanian? It seems preposterous to suggest that in English language online site that advertises itself as being accessible to all comers, in this case an exception is made to quality of research, sourcing and referencing and translation of parts of articles. All this started with this article Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive which is supposed to be a name of a Soviet WW2 operation named (in transliterated and widely used English as Yassy-Kishinev Offensive. The name was moved because of the assertion that the operation should be known by the modern Romanian city names and not the English ISO9 transliteration of the original Russian as used by this former US Army colonel. The editors failed to understand that the name of the operation refers to a general course of events over two weeks taking place in the area of the two cities and does not refer to the cities as such. Never the less when I consulted with the project coordinator and politely asked for a move, and presented the reasons for the request, the reasons were not discussed, and instead for 8 days a polemic ensued on how to spell the names of the cities. It is not kosher to change the name of a historic event by a Wikipedia poll to suit a particular national POV.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, speaking not as an admin but as a linguist here now (me, that is), what makes you think that the spelling differences between "o" and "u" documented in the 19th century would have any bearing, either way, on the history of the transmission of the name in the medieval era? Do you understand the concept of regular sound change, and how it interacts with linguistic borrowing? What makes you think a 19th-century "u" could only emerge via Turkish? Did you bring forward any reliable sources to that effect?

As for the quality of research, I'd tend to disagree: it's in fact a good sign of quality if we incorporate information from non-English sources; we'd otherwise be at least excluding 90% of the world's treasury of knowledge, wouldn't we? Whether we're doing a good job at documenting that non-English knowledge is a different issue of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either 'o' or 'u' has any bearing on the issue. It so happens that most of my sources use 'u' but I have been castigated repeatedly for not using 'o' as an indication of a personal insult to Romania and Romanians. My problem is that the Etymological piece can not show any evidence prior to 15th century of the use of Rumania, Romania, Rumelia, or any other version. The only extant documented use comes via Ottoman documents, and ultimately the Arabic Koran which has the ar-Rum sura. The regular sound change as you suggest may have taken place (as is suggested by Arabic usage) many times between the 3rd century Roman withdrawal from Dacia and the 15th century MS (also unreferenced and without translation; tagged for expert). The most reliable source is the one I brought because he is a late source and a very respected one that is a contemporary of the name change so would have had the knowledge of extant arguments. Regardless, if the Romanian is the official spelling of the country NOW, and is even the EU standard, it does not apply to transliteration from WW2 Russian which offers no other versions then Rumania on account of Cyrillic 'у'. When I used Rumania in the WW2 article it was immediately edited out as non-conforming with current official usage in Romania. Does Romanian government have the right to rewrite histories of other countries based on its language policy?

I also agree with you on use of non-English sources, BUT...it has to be accessible to English readers! I do a fair amount of non-English to English translation myself (primarily from Russian and German), so I have no choice but to agree. The point is that presenting an English speaker with a lump of text in Italian is fairly pointless since it adds nothing to the knowledge gained and asks to extend good faith way too far AFAIK.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get what your issue is. As for the continuity or non-continuity of the use of *Romanus as a self-appellation before the 15th cent, you've just confirmed we have no material either way. The use of "o" or "u" in the 19th century is an entirely unrelated matter, as you've also just confirmed. The legitimacy of using "o" or "u" in the 21st century, when talking about events in the 20th, is yet another, equally unrelated matter. So what's the point?

Let me give you a sincere piece of advice at this point: give it a rest. This isn't going anywhere useful. At some stage during this discussion you must have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Happens to the best of us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I want the English usage article name for WW2 Soviet operation restored (as per my sources), and be free to use the Rumanian as transliteration from Russian in WW2 articles. And I also want to be able to read and understand references where they are from non-English sources.--mrg3105mrg3105 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Parallel history

Yes, I'm aware of the PHP - tried to get user:Eurocopter tigre to use it with his projected rewrite of the Romanian Land Forces, but he wasn't interested. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

that one walks on the Dark Side of the Force :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mrg. Where does one insert the divisional number? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do want to search for a specific division then its

о боевом пути [...]-й стрелковой дивизии this is \about combat path 999 rifle division\ alternatively search [...]-я стрелковая дивизия this is just \rifle division\ --mrg3105mrg3105 09:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Armies, do references always have the obshenchen~sorry whatever = All-Arms in front of them or can you find references solely to Xth Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact its a good way to date a source. Obschevoiskoviye=Combined Arms only came into usage after the war, but has been applied retrospectively by Soviet Army historians, but not war writers. I think its the Soviet equivalence of some of the peculiar US Army terminology that came in during various periods. the short answer is that you will find references with either/or Общевойсковая [..]-я Армия--mrg3105mrg3105 10:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the map pointer. They're djvu files - how does one open them? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to download a free LizardTech utility from here http://www.lizardtech.com/. Most Russians use it. However there are .jpg copies there also from the 12 volume History of the Great Patriotic War (История Второй Мировой войны 1939-1945 гг.), first one on the list if you don't want to download the LizardTech utility. I prefer jpg due to their small size.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Army emblems

Thanks Mrg. I did a page for the 58th Army (Soviet Union) already, and I notice the 58th Army emblem is there. What do the three types of emblem mean? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean you did the 36 Army already (but not yet created)?

These emblems are news to me. The site they came from (RF MoD) simply states Small, Medium, and Large, the large one was the one I used (because it seemed more decorative)http://www.mil.ru/849/12215/12346/16001/16462/16468/index.shtml. The appear to reflect a regional theme - the early fortresses of the Caucasus that were the 'gates' to Russia from the Caucasus (they are shut), so security, with the sword being a traditional symbol of armed forces. So far only the two Armies have these on the official site although many units are acquiring emblems/shields/patches, not all of them 'official'.--mrg3105mrg3105 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, of course YOU did the Army articles :o) I just thought its still in the process of being updated. I placed the shield in the current formation part, hope you don't mind? I came across the emblems by accident. The Army emblem also appears on the Military Region's Commanding Officer's standard --mrg3105mrg3105 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I personnally did the 58th Army article. Could you put a ref tag on your new Malaya Zemlya OB info for 18th Army? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)